RealGM

Posted: **Tue Jun 6, 2023 1:00 am**

Who was better? I think the quote from Russell is well known where he said that Wilt was playing like him except he was doing it even better. I'd like to get opinions. Does Wilt's super efficiency give him the edge on Russ or do Russ' intangibles and def iq still make him better?

Posted: **Tue Jun 6, 2023 1:13 am**

I probably go with Wilt here. I still think Russell, even at that late stage of his career, was better defensively. But there's little doubt in my mind that Wilt was significantly better offensively (little more volume, a more credible threat in general, and far superior efficiency). With playoffs included, Wilt was arguably the best/most important player on an all-time tier team; Russell's team was merely the best of that particular year (and perhaps barely so).

idk; it probably pretty close. That's my off-the-cuff feeling, though.

Posted: **Tue Jun 6, 2023 2:30 am**

Russell via assuming the player/coach role.

Not to mention as evidenced by the 70 & 73 series outcomes....i think the Lakers somewhat caught a break with Willis Reed missing the Finals injured.

Posted: **Tue Jun 6, 2023 2:41 am**

Interesting question. Russ was pretty good in his last season.

Wilt, of course, was a better rebounder, a similar passer, dramatically superior on offense and an exceptional defender. Hard not to pick him for this one, player-coach business notwithstanding.

Posted: **Tue Jun 6, 2023 3:44 am**

tsherkin wrote:Interesting question. Russ was pretty good in his last season.

Wilt, of course, was a better rebounder, a similar passer, dramatically superior on offense and an exceptional defender. Hard not to pick him for this one, player-coach business notwithstanding.

OF course he was a better rebounder? I'm much less sure than you are. Russell pulled down 19.3 boards in 42.7 minutes in a year the Celtics pace wasn't the fastest in the league (5th/14). Wilt pulled down 19.2 in 42.3 minutes for the league's fastest paced offense (1/17). In the playoffs Wilt has a slight edge (21.0 in 46.9 minutes) v. (20.5 in 46.1) but it's pretty slight statistically. "Of course" seems a huge overstatement.

I've never been as impressed as some with EITHER Russell or Wilt's passing so I won't argue there. Wilt did score MUCH more efficiently, though Russell spaced the floor more. One can question how much value to assign to the team's 5th option scorer, almost all from very close in, when Russell actually shot more in both regular season and playoffs, still I give a clear edge to Wilt.

Just as while Wilt is an excellent defender and led LA to the second best defense in the league, Russell is still the GOAT with a clear edge on the second best defense of his year despite not having KC Jones (team's 2nd best defender by 1960s rep).

I don't care about the player coach thing that much, but Wilt also had stronger teammates. West has a slight edge over Havlicek, Howell over Goodrich, but Hairston and John Johnson were better than Larry Siegfried/Emmett Bryant and Tom Sanders. Celtics did have a bench edge with Don Nelson and Sam Jones (though Jones shot poorly in the playoffs) v. Keith Erickson and Leroy Ellis so that closes the gap. Of course, the Lakers were a better team overall too.

Posted: **Tue Jun 6, 2023 5:03 am**

Russell was a fantastic rebounder, but Wilt was maybe the GOAT rebounder. They both could obviously play the primary rebounder and rim protector role extremely well, and both had exceptional athleticism and fundamentals to be an all-time rebounder. But Wilt was superior in reach and strength, and there are situations where that matters (grabbing over the top or just yoinking it out of someones hand). Wilt had a 28 to 23 rebound advantage head to head with Russ over their careers (94 times they matched up).

Wilt also forced a lower FG% difference on Russ. Wilt for his career shot 54% and Russ 44%. Head to head, it was 49 (-5) and 37 (-7). Wilt scored nearly at the same rate as his career average (29.9ppg vs Russ to 30.1 career).

Russ' Celtics always were the deepest team in the league, every year Russ played. That was the crux of their winning. They just ran teams into the ground pushing the pace. Wilt was susceptible to this like anyone else despite his legendary stamina just because he was asked to do so much on both ends. Plus a 300+lb dude just exerts more energy to move around than a 240lb one.

When Wilt was asked to play more like Bill Russell in the back half of his career, he was leading contenders every season, and you can argue that none of the missed championships were his fault. I feel Wilt was the clearly better player every season from '66 onward, even compared to Russ' corresponding same age season. The first 6 years of Wilt's career it was more of a toss-up, but Wilt had bad teammates and even worse coaches (till Hannum). He was simply asked to do too much, and wore him thin.

Posted: **Tue Jun 6, 2023 5:42 am**

kendogg wrote:Russell was a fantastic rebounder, but Wilt was maybe the GOAT rebounder. They both could obviously play the primary rebounder and rim protector role extremely well, and both had exceptional athleticism and fundamentals to be an all-time rebounder. But Wilt was superior in reach and strength, and there are situations where that matters (grabbing over the top or just yoinking it out of someones hand). Wilt had a 28 to 23 rebound advantage head to head with Russ over their careers (94 times they matched up).

Wilt also forced a lower FG% difference on Russ. Wilt for his career shot 54% and Russ 44%. Head to head, it was 49 (-5) and 37 (-7). Wilt scored nearly at the same rate as his career average (29.9ppg vs Russ to 30.1 career).

Russ' Celtics always were the deepest team in the league, every year Russ played. That was the crux of their winning. They just ran teams into the ground pushing the pace. Wilt was susceptible to this like anyone else despite his legendary stamina just because he was asked to do so much on both ends. Plus a 300+lb dude just exerts more energy to move around than a 240lb one.

When Wilt was asked to play more like Bill Russell in the back half of his career, he was leading contenders every season, and you can argue that none of the missed championships were his fault. I feel Wilt was the clearly better player every season from '66 onward, even compared to Russ' corresponding same age season. The first 6 years of Wilt's career it was more of a toss-up, but Wilt had bad teammates and even worse coaches (till Hannum). He was simply asked to do too much, and wore him thin.

That is their career stats not when they are both old. They are talking specifically about 69 Russell vs 72 Chamberlain. Also, Chamberlain lowering Russell's FG% isn't all that impressive, Russell wasn't a great scorer.

Posted: **Tue Jun 6, 2023 7:00 am**

Wow, that's a hard one. Gun to my head, I might prefer Russell just slightly because of his more versatile defense and more activity on offense but man it's really tough.

About rebounding - here are old estimates of rebounding rates for Russell and Wilt's Basketball-Reference numbers:

1969 Russell: 18.6% in RS, 19.0% in PS
1972 Wilt: 20.1% in RS, 20.2% in PS

I think Wilt has considerable advantage here and overall Wilt seemed to be better rebounder overall (at least on offensive end).

Posted: **Wed Jun 7, 2023 4:21 pm**

penbeast0 wrote:OF course he was a better rebounder? I'm much less sure than you are. Russell pulled down 19.3 boards in 42.7 minutes in a year the Celtics pace wasn't the fastest in the league (5th/14). Wilt pulled down 19.2 in 42.3 minutes for the league's fastest paced offense (1/17). In the playoffs Wilt has a slight edge (21.0 in 46.9 minutes) v. (20.5 in 46.1) but it's pretty slight statistically. "Of course" seems a huge overstatement.

Yeah, that's fair. I'm not clear why I wrote that with such confidence, to be honest. Similar minutes, similar average, Celtics were at 117.5 pace, Lakers at 116.9. Seems like my fingers got ahead of my brain.

though Russell spaced the floor more.

Based on what? Certainly not perimeter scoring efficiency or shooting ability. You mean because he was employed as a passer at the nail more?

One can question how much value to assign to the team's 5th option scorer, almost all from very close in, when Russell actually shot more in both regular season and playoffs, still I give a clear edge to Wilt.

Hard to see any value to Russell's scoring compared to Wilt's, even in these specific seasons. Wilt as a low-volume scorer was matching Russell's career average PPG on efficiency that would still be positive in today's league, and which led the league at the time.

Maybe I missed your point here? I see you giving the clear edge, I'm just wondering what shooting volume has to do with anything here when Russell was a 95 TS+ player that season. Him shooting more wasn't a good thing. He was -2.4% rTS, while Wilt was +10.7%. Yes, on lower volume, but he didn't need to shoot more because he had other quality scorers on the team. He was always a better scorer than Russell.

Just as while Wilt is an excellent defender and led LA to the second best defense in the league, Russell is still the GOAT with a clear edge on the second best defense of his year despite not having KC Jones (team's 2nd best defender by 1960s rep).

Russell as the better defender makes sense, yes. The gap is smaller for Lakers Wilt, but obviously still present. I guess my thought was that it just mattered less given the gross difference in their offensive efficacy. I'd rather have 72 Wilt than 69 Russell, personally. Even back then.

Posted: **Wed Jun 7, 2023 4:33 pm**

Obviously Wilt was a far superior scorer, just that he had shifted to the "only shoot putbacks and low post dunks and layups" mode so his scoring in 72 and 73 was less of an edge in those years than it had been in the 60s and he was camping out closer to the basket thus lessening his team's spacing a bit where Russell tended to be on the high post where he was not a good scorer but not someone that you left wide open either. And I do believe that Russell's defensive edge is still pretty clear even in these years. And I guess I just trust Russell's BBIQ more as well.

Posted: **Wed Jun 7, 2023 4:56 pm**

penbeast0 wrote:Obviously Wilt was a far superior scorer, just that he had shifted to the "only shoot putbacks and low post dunks and layups" mode so his scoring in 72 and 73 was less of an edge in those years than it had been in the 60s and he was camping out closer to the basket thus lessening his team's spacing a bit where Russell tended to be on the high post where he was not a good scorer but not someone that you left wide open either. And I do believe that Russell's defensive edge is still pretty clear even in these years. And I guess I just trust Russell's BBIQ more as well.

I agree with you that Russell still had a clear defensive edge, I literally only meant that the defensive gap was smaller with Wilt focusing less on volume scoring. Russell was a much better team defender, that much is evident.

I don't think Wilt's placement close to the basket hurt LA's offense. They were, after all, the best offense in the league. It didn't seem to impact them much. In fact, given the closer jumpers and Wilt's offensive rebounding, it probably aided them pretty significantly, were I to hazard a guess. Fewer threes, more shots coming off the rim near to where Wilt could get to them, etc.

I see where you're coming from. There's a lot to respect about Russ, even in his final year. I may not agree in this particular comparison, but it's certainly not a bad move to take Russ' position on this one because he was still an excellent player without a doubt.

Posted: **Wed Jun 7, 2023 8:43 pm**

I lean Wilt, both are very high-end Weak MVPs imo (which is nothing short of phenomenal at the age of 35). If one were saying Russell under the premise of him 'doing more' due to being a player and coach simultaneously, I would not disagree in the slightest - and view this as a good debate just looking at situational impact each of the two respectively provided.

As it pertains to player 'goodness' / value without factoring in more of the intangible factors, some data from the two of their teams (back from Sansterre's T-100 teams project):

1969 Celtics:

Spoiler:

1972 Lakers:

Spoiler:

With the YoY changes in defense (72/73 Lakers -> 74 vs. 68/69 Celtics -> 70) as well as what we know about both players' tendencies/attributes, I feel as if it's safe to say Russell is the comfortably better defender here. This is no knack at Wilt, as I believe this to be his defensive peak.. where the team results view him very, very good as well. When assessing offense, no doubt Wilt measures out as the better player - due to the major gap in scoring volume and efficacy. Even though Wilt benefitted decently from having West/Goodrich facilitate and being spoon-fed scoring opportunities as a play-finisher, I don't think Russell would have replicated such. Where Russell takes the advantage on offense is as a passer / connector, averaging more assists despite lesser offensive talent around him and grading out higher in passer rating (Ben / ElGee's Model). As 70s shared earlier, the rebounding numbers favor Wilt at face value. I would take Russell when analyzing this skill due to him playing across more spots across the floor, but this is no knack at Wilt again (heck, his rebounding played a huge part in bringing LAL our first NBA title). With Russell grading out marginally better in those areas but Wilt being a much better scorer - especially ramping it up the few times when needed to close out NYK/MIL - I would say the offensive gap mildly outweighs the defensive one.

Posted: **Wed Jun 7, 2023 9:47 pm**

rk2023 wrote:I lean Wilt, both are very high-end Weak MVPs imo (which is nothing short of phenomenal at the age of 35)..

What would be an example of a low end weak MVP in contrast to a high end one? I would imagine if they're weak MVP's they're already on the low end.

Posted: **Wed Jun 7, 2023 9:57 pm**

HeartBreakKid wrote:
rk2023 wrote:I lean Wilt, both are very high-end Weak MVPs imo (which is nothing short of phenomenal at the age of 35)..

What would be an example of a low end weak MVP in contrast to a high end one? I would imagine if they're weak MVP's they're already on the low end.

I'm using a evaluation system similar to CORP. For example, a low-end Weak MVP would be a +4 player (think this years' Anthony Davis) whereas a high-end would be closer / very close to +5.

Posted: **Wed Jun 7, 2023 11:29 pm**

rk2023 wrote:
HeartBreakKid wrote:
rk2023 wrote:I lean Wilt, both are very high-end Weak MVPs imo (which is nothing short of phenomenal at the age of 35)..

What would be an example of a low end weak MVP in contrast to a high end one? I would imagine if they're weak MVP's they're already on the low end.

I'm using a evaluation system similar to CORP. For example, a low-end Weak MVP would be a +4 player (think this years' Anthony Davis) whereas a high-end would be closer / very close to +5.

A +5 player in 69 is not a weak mvp lol. Producing league-best srs by youself is comfortably goat-tier if you're actually looking at championship probability and not trying to compare raw win totals. Never mind the Celtics actually dropped off by 7-points with the same roster and an improving second banana

RealGM

69 Russell vs 72 Wilt

69 Russell vs 72 Wilt

Re: 69 Russell vs 72 Wilt

Re: 69 Russell vs 72 Wilt

Re: 69 Russell vs 72 Wilt

Re: 69 Russell vs 72 Wilt

Re: 69 Russell vs 72 Wilt

Re: 69 Russell vs 72 Wilt

Re: 69 Russell vs 72 Wilt

Re: 69 Russell vs 72 Wilt

Re: 69 Russell vs 72 Wilt

Re: 69 Russell vs 72 Wilt

Re: 69 Russell vs 72 Wilt

Re: 69 Russell vs 72 Wilt

Re: 69 Russell vs 72 Wilt

Re: 69 Russell vs 72 Wilt